David Singer:
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:53 , Daniel Glazman wrote:
>
>> if we do that, will Apple remove such early prefixes from WebKit even if they are shipped and used in the wild? Without a VERY firm "yes", I will increase the problem only, not decrease it…
>
> I think if a vendor introduces an idea, that then transitions into a CSS WG item, they ought to recognizer their vendor prefix while it's theirs, and the CSS prefix once it goes to the W3C. I don't think they should be required to then drop *support* for the vendor prefix, but of course, I agree, it would be most helpful if they then *evangelized* the CSS prefix and 'ceased to mention' their old vendor prefixed version. Is that what you are asking?
It probably answers the question he was asking – in the way he presumed.
Vendor (prefix) lock-in comes from
idea → implementation → release → proposal → standard
which is a (simplified) scheme some players seems to favor, especially when they see early implementation (however imperfect) as an business advantage. The ideal open standard, W3C process, however, would be
idea → proposal → implementation → standard → release
↖ draft ↙
The resulting actual process, currently, is more like
a)↗ implementation ↘
idea ↑ release
b)↘ proposal → draft ↙
Once you hit the “release” stage you* hardly can remove prefixes that exist at this point, whatever they may be called.
*read: anyone who wants to keep or increase their market share.